We have recently been retained to defend a ratings agency corporate executive in case of substantial importance to the United States financial industry involving shareholder breach of fiduciary duty claims relating to credit ratings given to mortgage backed securities. This action is pending in state court in New York, and the damages sought are in the billions.
Pastore & Dailey LLC is pleased to announce another victory in a New York State Court case regarding the employment of a high-level individual in the financial industry. In a recent decision, Pastore & Dailey successfully argued that an employee was entitled to proceed in arbitration against his former employer, as bargained for under his employment agreement. This decision exemplifies Pastore & Dailey’s skill and unyielding desire to seek the best, most efficient, and most beneficial result for our clients.
Pastore & Dailey LLC successfully represented a long standing hedge fund client that specializes in micro cap lending in two separate phases of litigation against a sophisticated commercial borrower. First, Pastore & Dailey secured a favorable settlement for its client as a result of filing an application for pre-judgment remedy, which sought to attach the assets of the defendant, who was an out of state resident. After the settlement agreement was breached over a year after it was executed, Pastore & Dailey’s investigation into the Defendants representations during the settlement negotiation process led it to conclude that the Defendants fraudulently induced our client into signing the settlement agreement. Pastore & Dailey LLC filed various motions for contempt and sanctions based on the fraudulent inducement. After two days of hearings and a plethora of briefs, the Court found that Pastore & Dailey LLC showed, by meeting the very high standard of clear and convincing evidence, that Defendants committed fraud in inducing our client to execute the settlement agreement. The Court ultimately awarded sanctions against Defendants in the form of attorneys’ fees, voided the settlement agreement, and allowed our client to continue to pursue its claims against Defendants.
Pastore & Dailey successfully dismissed claims filed in Delaware bankruptcy court by one of the nation’s largest mineral mining companies. Pastore & Dailey represents an investment bank seeking a fee associated with $650 million in construction financing for the project. The mining company was attempting to avoid paying this fee by asserting that claims had been discharged in bankruptcy.
The law firm of Pastore & Dailey LLC is pleased to welcome Matthew Bowie as Counsel. Matthew will open and manage Pastore & Dailey’s new Massachusetts office in the Cambridge Innovation Center located at 50 Milk St. in Boston’s Financial District. Pastore & Dailey also has two Connecticut offices in Glastonbury and Stamford, two Florida offices in Gainesville and Melbourne, and an office in New York City. Matthew joins a fast-growing firm of professionals, including the former Connecticut Secretary of the State, the former general counsel of a Wall Street firm, and a senior New York Stock Exchange regulatory attorney. Matthew will assist clients seeking legal representation in matters involving corporate law, securities law, finance, and intellectual property.
Prior to joining Pastore & Dailey, Matthew practiced law at Goodwin Procter LLP. At Goodwin Procter, Matthew served as counsel for various prominent companies and individuals, including the nation’s largest mortgage lender, the world’s largest third-party coin certification service company, and several directors of a significant multinational chemical company. After his time at Goodwin Procter, Matthew served as Associate Counsel for Consumers United, Inc., reporting directly to the General Counsel of the largest online, independent auto insurance agency in the United States.
Matthew earned his Bachelor of Arts from Boston College, graduating magna cum laude. He then earned his law degree from The George Washington University School of Law, graduating with honors. Before practicing law, Matthew served as an internal operations consultant for F.W. Webb. Matthew is admitted to practice law in Massachusetts. Matthew stated, “I am excited to open and manage Pastore & Dailey’s Boston office and to provide world-class legal services to clients in the thriving business community of the Greater Boston area.”
“We are extremely pleased to bring Matt to the firm and expand our practice to the Boston market,” said Pastore & Dailey’s Managing Partner, Joe Pastore. “We pride ourselves on the unique combination of big firm and sophisticated legal services coupled with a fair and reasonable approach to billing and fee structures. We are confident that with Matt’s experience and our approach, our firm will be an asset to Boston’s business community.”
Dan Smolnik, Of Counsel with Pastore & Dailey LLC, has just been appointed by the Connecticut General Assembly to the Commission on Connecticut’s Leadership in Corporation & Business Law. He will be chairing the subcommittee on tax law and policy.
On behalf of its sophisticated financial services client, Pastore & Dailey LLC recently defeated a Motion to Stay a New York Supreme Court action pending resolution of an ongoing arbitration. In denying the defendants’ motion for a stay, the court agreed with P&D’s arguments that the corporate defendants’ conduct in choosing not to participate in the arbitration, thus creating a complete separation of identity between the defendants in the court case and the respondents in the arbitration, could not be used as an excuse to stop the court proceedings until the arbitration was resolved.
Pastore & Dailey recently defeated an emergency appeal to NYS Appellate Division (1st Dept.) by a client’s competitor in the financial services industry (including a FINRA member firm) on the trial court’s denial of its motion to stay our client’s lawsuit in NYS Supreme Court (New York County) against the competitor and its principals while a related FINRA arbitration was in process. (Our client is suing the competitor and its principals for tortiously interfering with our client’s contracts with its ex-employees, among other things.)
The attorneys at Pastore & Dailey recently claimed a victory with respect to opposing a joint motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment in New York Supreme Court (Kings County). In that matter, Pastore & Dailey’s clients successfully secured a judgment for the client (a limited liability company whose members reside in Israel) in excess of $4MM in a Texas state court against a now defunct company. Our attorneys successfully domesticated that judgment in the New York Supreme Court and commenced an action against a party who owes money to the judgment debtor (the defunct company). After the commencement of the action, our attorneys successfully negotiated that a large sum of money be held in escrow by the defendant while the New York action was pending. Said funds came out of the sale of commercial property in New York City, which funds our clients claim to be entitled to as the judgment creditor. The defendant simultaneously moved to dismiss and for summary judgment claiming that Article 52 of the New York CPLR was the exclusive method to collect on a prior judgment and because the sale of the property did not create a cause of action for unjust enrichment and the creation of a constructive trust. While Article 52 is the primary means to collect on a judgment, our attorneys successfully argued that Article 52 is not the exclusive means upon which to collection on a judgment and furthermore successfully argued that the sale of the property created a colorable cause of action for unjust enrichment as the enhancement of value of the property was created, in part, by the investment of the judgment debtor. Therefore, the judgment creditor (our client) will be able to pursue its claims against the defendant for money that is owed to the judgment debtor.
Successfully represented a software development company in the motion for summary judgment phase of litigation pending in the Southern District of New York, in which the court determined that the Firm’s client could seek in excess to $15 million in damages at trial on its primary claim against a Fortune 500 company.
